Whats the source on this, posting an image and screaming isnt a source
1 Like
Oh boy, we love cherry picking glass cannons to try and prove a moot point.
Here’s the exact same cherry picking of your degree…
Move '292 to 20.0!!1!
Here’s a legitimate equal to the M1… And it can’t do a thing to to it.
It has more than enough armor for what it can fight, and the IPM1 / M1A1 do it even better while being 11.3 instead of 10.7.
Then again… You have 17 matches in the M1. Your opinion of it is effectively nonexistent.
T-72B isn’t capable of 3BM60, Leopard 2A4 has more than enough armor and maneuverability to make up for its DM23.
It isn’t? It’s a pretty decent tank with a LOT of great capabilities. You get DM33 at 10.7, good mobility, and spall liners that make it nearly invulnerable when hull-down.
Composite*, not reload.
you can hear words/ letters screaming at you? crazy.
there are people that have sources including the tech mods and other sources
gaijin knows this and has all the information, they just refuse to implements it.
Well if gaijin has it why don’t you post the sources shouldn’t be too hard well unless you know the sources are unreliable and theres a reason why gaijin isnt using them
3 Likes
bruh its already been done lol theres a entire thread about this that stona closed because we kept destroying the devs claims
Well if you supposedly destroyed their claims then post the sources
4 Likes
The devs decide your armour mate, not bug reports.
All MBTs at the top ranks have armour that is approximated by the devs based on widely available public documents and estimates, this can be seen in the case of the 2a7 using frontal hull data from the early 2a5 shown off in the swedish tank trials 30 years before it’s introduction, essentially missing 20+ years of armour development because they dont feel like it needs to be better
5 Likes
its clear you dont know what bug reports are do you?
which german players also proved was in correct and gaijin essentially ignored this as well. The challengers Leo 2a5s and m1a2 hulls are completely immune to 3BM 42 and gaijin knows this. All 3 of the turrets are completely immune to every single russian ATGM in this game.
I’m a little confused, did you write to me?
What’s clear is that you act off of impulse and not sense, if only you read my justification for the take that gaijin doesn’t balance top tier armour off of their estimates and not dubious data from random US reports with no citations on your end.
Besides I have spent plenty of time on the bug reporting forum trying to get gaijin to add anything F&F in AGM form to Israeli Jets, and know full well how bad the ignorance of certain gaijin staff can get.
Most if not all NATO armour is rated against Mango and early Svinets, same thing with our rounds, most NATO rounds at top tier are rated to pen the front plate of the T-80U (through K-5) from 2km but one can only dream
3 Likes
Yes
Are you saying it should face 9.0s?
No thank`s, it is fine where it is
1 Like
its clear you haven’t read any of the bug reports as they were given a primary source and a secondary source for the armor and they ignored it, so the next time you talk about impulse and not sense take your own logic and imply it. Gaijin had evidence to buff the Abrams LFP for years and they haven’t done it.
why dont you go read the forum post? its literally still there. rofl the entire community made gaijin look slow so they then locked the post. Hull Armor of the M1 Abrams - Official News, Development Blogs and Updates - War Thunder — official forum gaijin is a joke they ick and choose what bug report to accept and only what they believe is possible lpeople proved the stinger has 20 - 22 g turning when fired gaijin said the ydont believe it can do that BECAUSE THE IGLA CANT DO IT LOL
1 Like
By all means, provide some bug reports to see.
And people still assume if it’s peak or average load.
Buffing Stinger would also increase the BR of all slingers as well, thus negating most of effectiveness from the buff itself.
Only because gaijin are incompetent.